Did the torture of God's beloved Son satisfy Him?

[Guest]

Traveler Bob:

In Christ of course, our "debt" has been paid. The Law no longer has a claim upon us. God the Law Giver was satisfied with Jesus' payment.

I understand well what you are saying. It was the position I held until I was at least 30. I was taught it by all the Calvinist/fundamentalist preachers whom I heard in church every Sunday. But after studying the purpose of Christ's death from the Bible itself, I find this man-made concept entirely repugnant.

Do you really think Christ being crucified and undergoing a horrible and painful death was satisfying to the Father?

If all but one of your children were rebels against you, would you be satisfied to see the innocent one take the punishment for all the others? ---- even to the point of death?

This is the way demonic sacrifices of appeasement were made to the gods of the nations throughout the ages ---- in order that the gods would not harm the people. Innocent children and babies were sacrificed to these gods (who were in fact demons). Even the Israelites sacrificed their own children at times. Demonic spirits are still being appeased in many religions even in our day, perhaps not with human sacrifice, but certainly with animal sacrifice.

According to Heb 10:5, when Jesus came into the world, He said to God, "Sacrifice and offering you have not desired..."

Not desired and not required. But man wants to do religion his own way.[/b]

[Guest]

So what exactly did Jesus' death do, if not "satisfy the wrath of God?" I am very curious as to your thoughts on the issue, as it is something I have been wrestling with myself. Thanks!

-Rachel

[Guest]

Hello Paidion,

According to Heb 10:5, when Jesus came into the world, He said to God, "Sacrifice and offering you have not desired..."

Not desired and not required. But man wants to do religion his own way.

God desires obedience over sacrifice...is the meaning, imo.

1 Sam 15:22 (NASB)
Samuel said,
"Has the LORD as much delight in burnt offerings and sacrifices
As in obeying the voice of the LORD?
Behold, to obey is better than sacrifice,
And to heed than the fat of rams."

Since sacrifices were required in the Law; though God (obviously) preferred obedience; (I'm not following your train of thought here).

"Theories of the Atonement (of Christ)" are intricate & detailed. As far as I know, I believe in all of them (though there may be some Calvinistic forms I do not accept).

"Satisfaction," as used in theology doesn't have the usual common meaning of "gratification of a (selfish or evil) desire," "satisfying a (gluttonous or lustful) appetite," etc. Rather, it is "satisfying a demand" (meeting a requirement, paying a debt owed, making restitution, performing an atonement, etc.), imo. As far as I know, "satisfaction" itself is not actually used in the Bible to refer to sin offerings (sacrifices). Some of the biblical terms are: propitiation, expiation, and/or atonement.

Do you really think Christ being crucified and undergoing a horrible and painful death was satisfying to the Father?

Yes. With the definition of "satifsying" as: meeting a requirement, paying a debt, making restitution, performing an atonement.

If all but one of your children were rebels against you, would you be satisfied to see the innocent one take the punishment for all the others? ---- even to the point of death?

Any human being who thought like this would be insane.

But if, for discussion's sake, let's suppose I am God....
Yes, I would be "satisfied" with the same definitions, as above. (See John 3:16)! Amazing Love, How Can it Be? That Thou, My God, Shouldst Die for me!!!
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I had a long debate with a guy about this @ Beliefnet. He held to the "Christus Victor" view (that Christ's death was primarily about His victory over the devil and the forces of evil). I hold to this view also. However, unlike my friend; I don't see the sacrifices of the ancient Hebrews as being entirely different than other peoples sacrificing to other gods.

The God of the Bible wasn't (and isn't) "manipulated" like pagan deities as He wasn't (and isn't) manipulative Himself! However, He did and does demand the shedding of blood to atone for sins. To me, this is all about His holiness and justice -- as opposed to -- the selfishness and self-serving qualities of the evil pagan deities.

My friend @ Beliefnet and I called a "truce" after about 6 weeks (we were in "gridlock")...So, we agreed to disagree. I did learn a lot more about the Christus Victor view which was very popular among Early Fathers of the Church.
Rick

[Guest]

Jesus was killed because He was undermining the authority of the Jewish leaders of His time. These Jewish leaders, in a willful act of wickedness, convinced the Romans to torture and crucify Him. Jesus was killed due to political motivations. In no way can God be "satisfied" with the wicked acts of men.

Jesus had the power to save Himself but chose not to do so. Allowing Himself to die was the ultimate act of self-denial leaving us an example to follow; namely, that we also should deny self and choose righteousness. In this God finds satisfaction.

Jesus also knew that ultimately joy would overcome sorrow when He was resurrected from the dead - becoming the firstborn of many bretheren.

Heb 12:2
looking unto Jesus, the author and finisher of our faith, who for the joy that was set before Him endured the cross, despising the shame, and has sat down at the right hand of the throne of God.

Todd

[Guest]

looking unto Jesus, the author and finisher of our faith, who for the joy that was set before Him endured the cross, despising the shame, and has sat down at the right hand of the throne of God.


But why is enduring the cross linked to the joy of resurrection? Why that type of death as opposed to a normal death by old age or disease? There is a linkage of the nature of his death to some spiritual truth or law which i think has to do with righteous justice.
Perhaps since God has allowed evil and suffering into this world, His own righteous justice for Himself demands that He actually suffer as we suffer.
So perhaps God's own standard of justice demands that the Father must suffer as the children suffer and perhaps God participated in our suffering through Christ's suffering.

[Guest]

I don't think the Father was pleased to see injustice inflicted on his Son. Rather, I think the Father took great joy in the fact that Jesus was obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross. And it's that obedience to his Father that joins us all and makes reconciliation. If Jesus had loved the world more than his Father (and us) then we'd still be enemies of God. I will also admit that there are parts of the atonement that the Bible simply doesn't explain and curious minds want to know. We know what Jesus did and we know it pleased the Father and reconciled us to Him... but everything else is guesswork, in my opinion. Nevertheless, it's profitable to discuss such things, so long as we don't let our imaginations run wild and claim to confidently know things that haven't been revealed to us.

[Guest]

Hello Paidion,

Wasn't looking for your answers on another thread, bro! You "cherry picked" what you wanted from my comments and hijacked them into a new topic? Not cool bro. We were having this discussion in the "forgiveness" thread, I thought.

Quote: "Do you really think Christ being crucified and undergoing a horrible and painful death was satisfying to the Father"?

Yes! But we need to discuss what satisfied the Father.

Quote: "If all but one of your children were rebels against you, would you be satisfied to see the innocent one take the punishment for all the others? ---- even to the point of death"?

Apples and oranges! I am not God the Father. Just a father. Kinda what Jesus did though.

Quote: "This is the way demonic sacrifices of appeasement were made to the gods of the nations throughout the ages ---- in order that the gods would not harm the people. Innocent children and babies were sacrificed to these gods (who were in fact demons). Even the Israelites sacrificed their own children at times. Demonic spirits are still being appeased in many religions even in our day, perhaps not with human sacrifice, but certainly with animal sacrifice".

It may have appeared "demonic" from a Christian perspective. But have you considered the reason why pagans sacrificed their children?

Quote: " According to Heb 10:5, when Jesus came into the world, He said to God, "Sacrifice and offering you have not desired..."

Yes. But the Law of God required them. Heb 10:8

So why then did Jesus die for our sins? Merely as an altruistic example?
I do not think His death at the hands of evil men served as an altruistic example. An example to what, I would have to ask? Strictly from a human perspective, Jesus was crucified like any other criminal. His death didn't even make the "headlines".. He's just another 'starry eyed messiah' murdered for his beliefs.... So what!!!! What makes Him unique
in His death Paidion?

In Him,
Bob

[Guest]

Hello JC,

Quote: "I don't think the Father was pleased to see injustice inflicted on his Son"..

Is. 53:5,6,10.

But He was pierced through for our transgressions. He was crushed for our iniquities. The chastening for our well bing fell upon Him, and by His scourging we are healed..but the LORD has caused the iniquity of us all to fall upon Him..But the LORD WAS PLEASED TO CRUSH HIM putting Him to grief..

Some things to think about...

In Jesus,
Bob

[_Mort_Coyle]

Throughout the history of Christianity there have been a number of theories of what the atonement was all about. Here, in a nutshell, are some of the primary ones:

Ranson: Sometimes called the Classical atonement theory. This seems to have been the most common view in the early church. It can be found, for example, in the writings of Origen (185-254 AD). The Ranson Theory states that at the fall of Adam and Eve, Satan gained dominion (ownership) over the earth. Mankind became enslaved under Satan. Jesus offered Himself as a ransom to Satan, in exchange for mankind. As Origen wrote: "The payment could not be [made] to God [be]cause God was not holding sinners in captivity for a ransom, so the payment had to be to the devil." Satan believed that by taking Jesus in exchange for mankind, he would gain power over the Father, and so accepted Jesus' offer of ransom. After taking Jesus captive and releasing mankind, Satan discovered that he could not hold Jesus, because He was sinless. As a result, Satan lost everything. Essentially, he had been tricked! C.S. Lewis portrayed the Ranson theory beautifully in The Lion, The Witch and The Wardrobe when Aslan gives himself to the Witch in exchange for Edmund. Some modern-day Christians take this theory even farther, teaching that Jesus descended to Hell and was tormented by Satan and the demons for three days.

Satisfaction: The Satisfaction theory came to the forefront in the Middle Ages and reflects the culture of European Feudalism. It is generally attributed to Anselm of Canterbury, (1033-1109 AD) and is delineated in his book "Cur Deus Homo" ("Why God became man"). In the Satisfaction theory, the "ransom" is paid not to Satan, but to God. Man, by his sin, has offended God. However, man is completely unable to make up for this offense or satisfy God's requirements of holiness. Only Jesus, as the sinless God-Man can compensate the Father for the offenses of mankind. The relation to ancient Jewish ritual sacrifices is clear. Jesus willingly offers Himself as the sacrificial lamb to appease God and provide atonement on behalf of mankind. The picture here is of a feudal serf who has offended the honor of a feudal Lord. The son of the feudal Lord (and thus an equal in the stratified feudal system) steps in and satisfies the offense on behalf of the serf, thus restoring the Father's honor.

Moral Influence: This theory is generally attributed to Peter Abelard in the 12th century, but hints of it can be seen in early Christian writings such as Clement of Rome, The Shepherd of Hermas and the Gospel of Barnabas. In the Moral Influence theory, a payment is not demanded, either to Satan or God. Instead, Jesus' life, death and resurrection serve as a powerful symbol of God's love, compassion and mercy. As we look upon and grasp what God has done, our hearts are softened, we repent, and we are drawn to follow His example.

Penal Substitution: This was the view held by Luther and Calvin. It is really an evolution of Anselm's Satisfaction theory. It seems to be the view that you are assuming, Bob. The "offense of honor" of the Satisfaction view is replaced by a debt of sin. Man, through his sin, has incurred a debt against God that he can never hope to repay. God cannot (or will not) forgive this debt of sin in any way other than the shedding of blood. The emphasis here is on justice. Jesus is fully man but (due to His divine nature) has kept the Law perfectly. As a result, He is the only one who can adequately pay the debt by incurring the penalty. He willingly agrees to do so. Again, we see references to the Hebrew sacrificial system.

Christus Victor: This is the predominant view in the Eastern Orthodox church but the name 'Christus Victor' was coined by the Swedish bishop Gustaf Aulén in his 1931 book by the same name. Christus Victor harkens back to the ancient Ransom theory but instead of Jesus submitting Himself (temporarily) to Satan, Jesus instead battles Satan and the powers of evil and triumphs over them. The result of Jesus' victory is what the Eastern Orthodox church calls theosis: the opportunity for man to become holy and reconciled to God and, ultimately, resurrected like Christ. Roots of the doctrine of theosis go all the way back to Irenaeus' doctrine of recapitulation: that Jesus became what we are so that we can become what He is.

Covenantal: Jesus took upon Himself the penalty for the Jews breaking covenant (a contractual relationship) with God, not as a means of satisfying God but as a way of fulfilling the covenant from both sides. Thus, Jesus becomes the center; the mediator. In the Covenantal theory, justice is defined not in Western terms of quid pro quo but in terms of faithfulness to a relationship. As a result, one's inclusion into God's covenant people is no longer predicated on ethnic identity or the performance of Mosaic Law but entirely upon God's faithfulness.

There are other, less common atonement theories such as the Arbitrary Acceptance theory of Scotus and Ockham, but the ones I've listed are the most prevalent. Sometimes the names given them are slightly different and my thumbnail descriptions leave plenty of room for discrepancy. Most Christians, it seems, haven't examined (or been taught) the various views and so tend to hold bits and pieces of several or shift back and forth from one to another without realizing it.

All of these theories have scripture which seems to support them. All of these theories have their shortcomings as well as their strong points. Each one has been held by brilliant and devout Christians. These various atonement theories have sometimes been compared to windows in a house. From each window you can see a piece of the sky from a certain perspective. None of the windows allows you to see the whole sky however.

Two thousand years ago an astounding event took place. Somehow, though His life, death and resurrection, Jesus took away our sin and reconciled us to God. Theologians have been trying to find language to explain it ever since.

[Guest]

Traveler Bob:

Wasn't looking for your answers on another thread, bro! You "cherry picked" what you wanted from my comments and hijacked them into a new topic? Not cool bro. We were having this discussion in the "forgiveness" thread, I thought.

Bob, I started a new thread because I thought the diversion to the supreme sacrifice of Jesus Christ was a broader topic than "forgiveness", and that it should be discussed on a thread of its own. I regret that I didn't
make mention of it on the forgiveness thread as I should have. I am sorry for the incovenience this must have caused you.

As for the purpose of Christ's death, and the other questions you have asked, they are all dealt with in a small booklet which I began to write (but have not yet finished). I have posted the first chapters of this booklet in a thread called "The Supreme Sacrifice of Jesus Christ". It can be found on this forum in the area called "Miscellaneous Essays." If you should read that, then you will probably have other questions which I did not answer in that thread. I will be glad to attempt answers either in this thread of that one when you are ready. Here is a link on which you can click to get there quickly.

http://www.wvss.com/forumc/viewtopic.php?t=708

After you have read chapters 1, you may wish to read chapter 3 about offerings and sacrifices. It appears that I never did get around to posting chapter 2. Here is the link:

http://www.wvss.com/forumc/viewtopic.php?t=793